View of Control of manganese deficiency in sugar beet by placement of a manganated compound fertilizer

(1)

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE ^{IN FINLAND}

Maataloustieteellinen Aikakauskirja Vol. 58: 215—220, 1986

Control

of manganese deficiency

in

sugar beet by placement of a manganated compound fertilizer

MATTI ERJALA

Sugar Beet Research Centre, SF-25170 KOTALATO, Finland

Abstract. InFinland,^manganesedeficiencyin sugarbeet has traditionally been controlled by spraying the foliage with manganesesulphate. According tofield experiments, placement ofanacid compound fertilizerseemsto providea newpossibilityof controlling manganese deficiencyof sugarbeet in heavilylimed fields. In 1-year experiments carried out in

1984—1985in seven fields which showed slightsymptoms ofmanganesedeficiency,conver- sion fromtopdressing totheplacement techniquealoneincreasedtheavailabilityofsoilman- ganesetosugarbeet. The availability was,however,best safeguarded only when manganese (0.7 %)wasadded to acid compound fertilizer and applied by the placement technique. Place-

mentofmanganese(25—30kg/ha MnS04 ; Mn 26 ^%)together with acid compound fertili- zerincreased the root yield by2.0tons⁽⁺ 7%)perhectareinaveragecompared to placement of manganese-free compound fertilizer. The newmethod of application did not haveasignifi- canteffect onthe quality of sugarbeet.

Indexwords; manganesefertilization, ^fertilizerreaction, ^band applied manganese

Introduction

Manganese, anutrient that plants need min- imal quantities of, ^{has been} a well-known plant nutrient for over60 years (McHargue 1922). Accordingtosomestudies,asugar beet yield of 35tons/hectare only contains 2000 g of manganese in average, including thetops (Draycott 1972).

In Finland, the sugar beet soils normally contain much more manganese than a crop needs,but unfortunatelymostof the manga- neseis _not in _aplant-available form (Mänty-

lähti 1981, Sperlingsson 1982). Like other plants, sugar beetcan only makeuse ofman- ganese in the form Mn²⁺ either as such (Cheng and Ouellette 1971)or small quantities of organic complex compounds of man-

ganese ^(Garciaand Sanchez de La Puente 1977).

The quantity of plant-available manganese is affected by several externalfactors; ^available manganese cantakeaninavailable form orviceversa. This isatypical equilibriumre- action thatcanbe illustrated by the following oxidation-reduction equation (Scheffer and SCHACHTSCHABEL 1976):

Mn0₂ ⁺ 4H⁺ ⁺ 2e- ^=: Mn²⁺ ⁺ 2 H2O (inavailable manganese available manga-

nese)

Accordingtothe above equation, the quantity of manganese availabletoplants canbe

(2)

controlled by the acidity and the redox-poten- tial of the soil.

In Finland, the cultivated soil is ^naturally acid. In sugar beet cultivation these soilsre- quire heavy liming, because sugar beet grows well in neutral soil. Liming decreases the acid- ityof ^thesoil, but makes manganese partly inavailabletoplants. Heavy limingcan cause manganese deficiency which is in factavery common situation in Finland.

Fertilizers that increase soil aciditycounter- actliming. These fertilizers release manganese for theuseof plants (Solovjev and Golubev 1978). The usefulness of this informationis, however, only theoretical, because acidification of the whole growth bed by fertilizers would be very expensive. The soil ^pH can, however,be lowered locally. Forinstance, ^by mixingagranulated fertilizer in the tilled soil layer, acidification takes place in the soilcon- tiguous to the fertilizer granules (Slotta

1981). But because of the high buffer capaci- tyof the soil this is only of minor significance to the plant. A better result is achieved by placing the fertilizer in rowsbeside the seed row. This depresses the^pHaround the fertilizer row to the extent that a remarkable amount of manganese becomes available to plants (Voth 1978, Voth and Christenson 1980, Walsh and McDonnel 1957). In heavily limed soils the availability of manganese tosugar beet canbe further increased by addition of manganese sulphate in the acid NPK fertilizer (Voth 1978, Voth and Christenson

1980).

In Finland, manganese deficiency in sugar beet is usuallycontrolled by spraying the foliage with manganese sulphate (10 kg/ha dis- solved in 300 1 of water) when clearsymptoms of manganese deficiency (varicoloured foliage) areobserved in late Juneorearly July. Spray- ing may be repeated after I—21—2weeks, ifnec- essary.

Leaf application is, ^however, ^{in many} ^re- spects insufficient ^{for the} control ^{of manga-} nesedeficiency. When the plantsare small it is difficultto combat manganese deficiency, most of the mixturebeing wasted because of

the smallareaof the foliage (Hale, Watson and Hull 1946). Apart from that, spraying is mostly carriedoutaftersymptoms of^deficiency have been observed. Thus the effect is boundtoremain scanty(Draycott and Far-

ley 1973). The sugar beet may have suffered from latent manganese deficiency for alonger period of time before appearance of symptoms.The effect of spraying remains scanty

also because there isnointernal, between-leaf transfer of manganese (Henkens and ^Jong- man 1965). The new leaves developing after spraying may sufferatleast from latentman- ganesedeficiency.

Addition of manganese fertilizer in the soil also involvessomeproblems, because manganese rapidly becomes inavailable to plants when mixed intoawell limed and tilled soil.

Top dressing requires relatively high quantities of manganese with regard to the benefit achieved (Draycottand ^Farley 1973).

It seems that the fertilizer placement technique together with acid compound fertilizers would offera new possibility of economical control of manganese deficiency insugarbeet (Voth 1978, Voth and Christenson 1980, Walsh and McDonnel 1957). The fertilizer placement technique is increasingly being used in Finland and there is anacid (pH 5.5) fer- tilizer_on the market specifically designed for sugar beet, a sodium containing compound fertilizer (NPKNaB; 13-6-8.5-6-0.2). Kemira Ltd. kindly enough produced ^asmallquant-

ity of this fertilizer withamanganesecontent of0.7 ^% for the present study.

Materials and methods

Thenew ideawastested insevenheavily limed old sugar beet fields in 1984—1985. The experimentswere carried out in fields which have previously shownsymptoms of manganese deficiency (Table 1).

Each experiment consisted of sixtreatments in quadruplicate:

1. Top dressing (900 kg/ha Na-containing compound fertilizer)

(3)

Table I. Soil characteristics.

Experimental Year pH P K Na Mg Mn

1

^Humus- ^Soil

site H2O ^% type

mg/1

Mietoinen 1984 7.6 67 165 63 69 12 4 CL'

Turenki ¹⁹⁸⁴ ^6.9 ¹⁶ ¹⁴⁰ 39 143 12 5 CL"

Perniö ¹⁹⁸⁴ ^7.2 ⁶⁵ ¹³⁶ ⁵⁷ ¹³³ ¹³ ⁵ LSC^b

Mietoinen 1985 7.1 38 226 52 43 8 3 CL^a

Salo 1985 7.3 55 369 40 341 49 8 LSC^b

Köyliö 1985 7.5 46 80 29 58 5 14 FL'

Perniö 1985 7.4 43 107 37 65 27 3 CL*

1 pH-corrected Mnvalues (Ac-EDTA-extraction)

a coarse loam b loamy, silty clay

1 tine loam

2. Fertilizer

placement (900kg/ha Na-containing compound fertilizer) 3. Top dressing ⁽⁹⁰⁰ kg/ha Na-containing

compound fertilizer ⁺ foliage fertilization with Mn a)

4. Fertilizer

placement (900 kg/ha Na-containing compound fertilizer ⁺ foliage fertilization with Mn a)

5. Top dressing (925 kg/ha Na-containing compound fertilizer with Mn b)

6. Fertilizer

placement (925 kg/ha Na-containing compound fertilizer with Mn b)

a) Manganese sulphate 10 kg/ha (Mn 26 ^%)

+ water 300 1/ha

b) Na-containing compound fertilizer containing manganese sulphate 27 kg/ton fertilizer (Mn 0.7 ^<%)

The experimental plots consisted of7rows, 12 meters each, three midmost rows being harvested (20 row meters).

The sugar beetwasdrilled directly tostand (distance between seeds 15 cm). Thetopdres- sing plotswerefertilized manually before the

last tilling. In the placement plots the fertilizer was applied toeach row separately, near the seedrow(about 3cmdeeper than the seed rowand 6cmaside of it) after the last tilling, using a sugar beet fertilizer-seeder.

Spraying with manganese sulphate was carried out immediately after appearance of symptoms of deficiency in the foliage. In 1984, ^spraying ^was done in early July and in 1985 in mid-July because of the later seeding period. In each plot thesymptomsof deficien- cywereevaluated visually and samples ofma- ture leaves _were taken 10—14 days after

spraying. An ash extract was made of dried and ground plant tops. The percentage of manganesein the extract was determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry.

Results

Because of the relatively small number of fieldstudies, nocorrelation could be pointed between the concentrations of manganese in the soil and plants. In the following, onlyme- ansof the_seven experiments _areevaluated.

Effect

^on the quantity and quality

of

^{the crop}

The averageroot yield, percentageof sugar and concentration of impurities of beets are presented in Table2. The results indicate that 217

(4)

Table 2.Effect of the treatments^on the quantity and quality of^sugarbeet yield.

Treatment Root yield Sugar ^-% Amino-N Potassium Sodium

(cf. text) t/ha mg/100^gbeet meq/ meq/

100 g beet 100 gbeet

1. 28.2(100)»* 15.83" 23.4» 6.3» 1.1»

2. 28.8(102)»^b 15.94» 24.0» 6.1" 1.0»

3. 28.1 (100)» 15.91» 22.3» 6.1" 1.0»

4. ^29.7 ⁽¹⁰⁵⁾^bc 15.97» 24.5» 6.1" 1.0"

5. 28.2(100)» 15.88» 23.4» 6.3» 1.0»

6. 30.8(109)' 15.89» 24.2» 6.3» 1.1»

* Numbersinthe same columns not marked bya commonletter differ from each other atastatistical probability of95 ^%.

thetest factors have affected much more the quantity than the quality of^{the crop.}

Spraying of manganese sulphate did not have a statistically significant effecton the quantity of the crop. The difference between treatments 1 and 3 show the effect of foliage fertilizing when the main nutrients have been applied bytopdressing. In such instances foliage fertilizing has resulted in a minor, ^statistically insignificant decrease in the beet yield

(—O.l tons/ha). The differencebetween treat- ments2 and 4 shows the effect of foliage fer- tilizationwhen the main nutrients have been applied by the fertilizer placement technique.

The foliage fertilizer is responsible fora small increase inroot yield(⁺0.9 tons/ha), which cannotbe shown statistical significance, however.

It is interesting to observe that compared to top dressing the fertilizer placement technique significantly increases the yield only when foliage fertilizer has also been applied.

The results indicatean interaction between the fertilizer placement technique and foliage fertilization.

In the present study, manganese had a strongeffectonthe sugar beetroot yield when manganesewas added to NPK fertilizer applied by the fertilizer placement technique.

Themanganesefertilization is responsible for the difference between treatments2 and 6, the increase in the yield being statistically significant(+ 2.otons/ha, ⁺ 7 ^%).Top dressing with Mn-containing compound fertilizer has not had any effect.

Effect

on symptoms

of

^manganese

deficiency and manganese concentration in plant tops

The fertilizer placement technique most prominently decreased thesymptomsofman- ganese deficiency (Table 3). Foliage fertilization only slightly decreased the ^symptoms.

Therewas noconsiderable difference between placement of manganese-containing NPK fertilizer and the conventional NPK fertilizer in favour of the former.

The manganese concentrations in thetops increased by 1.9-fold comparedtothe control (treatment 1) when the fertilizer placement techniquewasapplied. Placement of manganese-containing compound fertilizer most prominently affected the manganeseconcentrations in thetops.Manganeseconcentrations increased by 2.5-fold (Table 3).

Table 3. Effect of the treatmentson symptoms of man- ganesedeficiencyand manganeseconcentration of tops.

Symptomsof Mn^concentra- Mn deficiencyl^'² ^{tion of}^tops

Treatment (cf. text)

ppm 44^a 3.0*

1.0»

2.3' 0.7»

2.&

0.8^b 1.

82^b 2.

3.

4.

56^a 5.

6. 111'

Scale 1—lO

2 Numbersinthe samecolumns not marked by^{a com-} monletter,differ from each other atastatistical probability of95 ^%.

(5)

Discussion

The results of thepresentstudy clearly indicate thateven in Finlandmanganesedefici- ency may decrease the sugar beet^root yield.

Manganese fertilization is necessary especial- ly whensymptoms of manganese deficiency are present. Cropsexhibiting slight manganese deficiency responded tomanganeseprobably better than expected (Draycott and ^Farley 1973).The results donotexclude the possibility of latent deficiency causing losses in the beet yield (Sperlingsson 1982).Therefore, ⁱⁿ the future, testsshould be conducted bothon fields withno symptoms andon heavily limed fields with apparent symptoms.

Somereports suggestthat foliage fertilization should also have shown the effect ofman- ganese fertilization under these circumstances (Draycott and ^Farley 1973, ^Draycottand

Farley 1976). This was, however, ^not ^the case, probably because foliage fertilization was applied onlyonce,and possibly toolate (Farley and ^Draycott 1978).

The results of the study further indicate that manganese would best be available to sugar

beet when manganese-containing NPK fertilizer is placed to each ^row separately (Voth and Christenson 1980). This would ensure sufficient availability of manganese tosugar beet throughout the growing period. Theman- ganese inside the fertilizerrow wassomewhat protected against the oxidizing reactions of the soil.

The mechanism of action of the_newmeth- od of fertilization is not fully clarified. It is assumed that acidification of the soil conta- geous to the fertilizedrow has animportant role (VoTHand Christenson 1980). Placement of fertilizer alsopromotes the growth of the sugar beet tops; thus the plant secretes more easily soluble organic compounds into the rhizosphere (Farley and ^Draycott 1978, ^Män-

tylahti 1981). The organic compounds are oxidized in the rhizosphere and manganese is de- oxidized intoa plant-available form. The increase in the available manganese by the fertilizer placement techniquecanalso be depen- denton the fact that it_promotes the growth of theroots, this resulting in theroots sucking

up more efficiently even minor quantities of manganese available (Draycott 1972).

References

Cheng,^B.T,^& Ouellette, G.J. 1971.Manganeseavail- ability insoil. Soils and Fertilizers 34: 589—595.

Draycott,A.P. 1972.Sugar-Beet Nutrition. 250^{p. Lon-} don.

Draycott,A.P.^&Farley, R.F. 1973.Manganese;vital traceelement. British Sugar Beet Review 41, 1: 21 27.

Draycott, A.P. ^& Farley, R.F. 1973. Response by sugar beettosoil dressing and foliarspraysofman- ganese.J. Sci. Fd. Agric. 24: 675 —683.

Draycott,A.P.^&Farley,R.F. 1976.^Diagnosis^of^man- ganesedeficiencyinsugarbeet andresponsetoman- ganeseapplications.J.Sci.Fd.Agric. 27: 991 —998.

Farley, R.F. ^& Draycott, A.P. 1978. Manganesede- ficiencyin^sugarbeet and the incorporation of^manganeseinthe coating of pelleted seed. Plant and Soil 49: 71—83.

Garcia, C.G. ^&SanchezdeLAPuente,L. 1977.The absorptionof manganese (III) inoat plants.Plant and Soil 47: 229—237.

Gisioer, L.^&Hasler,A. 1948.Neuere Beobachtungen

iiber die Ursachen der Dörrfleckenkrankheit beim Hafer. Plantand Soil 1: 19—50.

Hale, J.8., Watson, M.A. ^& Hull, R. 1946. Ann.

Appi. Biol. 33: 13.

McFlargue, J.S. 1922.The role of^manganeseinplants.

J. Amer. Chem. Soc.44; 1592—1598.

Henkens,C.FI. ^&Jongman,E. 1965.The movement of manganeseinthe plant and the practicalconsequen-

ces. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 13: 392—407.

Mäntylahti,V. 1981.Determination of plant-available manganeseinFinnish soils. J. Soc. Scient. Agric.Finl.

53: 391—508.

Scheffer,F.^&Schachtschabel,P. 1976.Lehrbuch der Bodenkunde. 394 p. Stuttgart.

Slotta, U.M. 1981.Riihen brauchen ^Borund Mangan.

Zuckernibe ^30; 153—155.

Solov’ev, G.A.^& Golubev, M.V. 1978. Influence of highmineral-fertilizer application rate and various fertilizer ratioson manganeseand iron labilityinsoddy- podzolicsoil and the content of these elementsinpo- tatoes and fodder beets. Moscow Univ. Soil^{Sci. Bull.}

219

(6)

33,2; 48—53.

Sperlingsson, C. 1982.Glöm inte mangansprutningen.

Betodlaren45: 118—120.

Voth, R.D. 1978.Effect ofboron, manganeseand fer- tilizersonyield, quality and nutrition ofsugarbeets (Bela vulgaris L.). Dissertation Abstracts Internatio-

nal39, 3: 1076.

Voth,R.D.^&Christenson, D.R. 1980.Effect of fertil-

izer reaction and placementonavailabilityofman- ganese.Agr. J.72: 769—773.

Walsh, T.^& McDonnel, P.M. 1957.The control of manganesedeficiencyinwheat and oats by thecom- bined drilling ofamanganated granulated compound fertilizer. J. Dept. Agric., Dublin 53: 44.

Ms received December 12, 1986

SELOSTUS

Sokerijuurikkaan mangaaninpuutostilan torjunta sijoituslannoitustekniikalla ja mangaanipitoisella Y-lannoittcella Matti Erjala

SokerijuurikkaanTutkimuskeskus, 25170Kota lato

Suomessa mangaaninpuutettasokerijuurikaskasvus- toista ontotuttu torjumaanlehtilannoitteena annettavil- la mangaanosulfaatliruiskutuksilla. Suosituksenmukaan, josselviä puutosoireita (lehtien kirjavoitumista) ilmestyy lehtiin kesä-heinäkuunvaihteen aikoihin,niin kasvusto onsyytä ruiskuttaa mangaanosulfaatilla. Sitä käytetään 10kg/ha(Mn26 ^%)sekoitettuna300litraan^vettä.Ruis- kutus uusitaan tarvittaessaI—21—2 viikon kuluttua. Aikai- sempienkoetulosten sekä käytännön kokemusten ^mukaan lehtilannoitusmenetelmä mangaaninpuutteentorjunnassa onosoittautunut kuitenkin monessasuhteessa puutteel- liseksi. Lehtilannoituksella onvaikea torjua taimivaiheen aikaisiaoireita,sillä pienestä lehtipinta-alasta johtuen^suu- rinosalehtilannoitteesta meneehukkaan. Mangaanosul- faattiruiskutus vasta oireiden ilmestyessä lehtiinonmyös ongelmallista, sillä sokerijuurikas on ennennäkyviäoi- reita voinut kärsiä jo pitempään piilevästä mangaanin puutteesta. Lehtilannoituksen vaikutus jää aina osittai- seksi, sillä mangaani ei liiku kasvin sisällä lehdistä lehtiin. Ruiskutuksen jälkeen syntyvissä uusissa lehdissä voi taas hyvinkin esiintyä ainakin piilevää mangaanin puu- tetta.

Myös pintalannoitustekniikalla annettu mangaanilan-

noitusonpulmallista,sillä maahan lisätty mangaani muut- tuu hyvin kalkitussa jakuohkeassamaassanopeastikas- veille käyttökelvottomaan muotoon. Tokimaankautta- kin mangaaniavoidaan antaa, mutta käyttömäärät tule- vat silloin epätaloudellisen suuriksi.

Happamestivaikuttavan Y-lannoitteen levitys rivikoh- taisella sijoituslannoitustekniikalla näyttäisi tarjoavan uu- den mahdollisuuden torjua sokerijuurikkaan mangaanin- puutostilojavoimakkaasti kalkituilla sokerijuurikasmailla.

Seitsemässä yksivuotisessa kenttäkokeessa (1984 —85), joissa esiintyilieviä mangaaninpuutosoireita, jo pelkkä pintalannoitustekniikanvaihtaminen sijoituslannoitustek- niikkaan edesauttoi sokerijuurikkaan kykyä paremmin hyödyntäämaassaolevia mangaanivaroja. Sokerijuurik- kaan mangaanin saanti voitiin kuitenkin parhaiten tur- vata^vasta,kun happameen Y-lannoitteeseen lisättiinman- gaania(0.7 %)jaselevitettiin sijoituslannoitustekniikalla.

Mangaani sijoitettuna (25—30kg/ha MnS04^;Mn 26^%) yhdessä happamestivaikuttavan Y-lannoitteen kanssa an- toi keskimäärin n.2.0⁽⁺ 7%) tonnin juurisadonlisäyk- sen hehtaarilta mangaanittoman Y-lannoitteen sijoitta- miseen verrattuna.

220